The government should sometimes infringe on people's freedom for the security of society. To what extend do you agree or disagree with this statement?

Although

most citizens don't like the states controlling their personal lives, it's a common belief

that is

among people that restrictions can sometimes be made on human beings' activities to provide security. I agree with

this

point of view since it can protect the community from danger and make sure regulations are followed.

To begin

with, rules are made to protect crowds from jeopardy. Part of the activities that are implemented regularly, to a number , can be perilous to others.

Thus

, the government has put out controls

consequently

that crowds are less susceptible to threats.

This

can be done by promulgating laws that forbid the community to perform certain acts.

For instance

, speed regulations are formed to traffic laws, which minimize accidents caused by travelling velocity. These adjustments are made to provide a more secure life to human beings,

hence

making it easier. On top of that, restrictions are to make sure that safety control is followed. These rules are to ensure that no one is harmed.

Therefore

, prohibitions in certain actions are necessary to ensure that safety guidelines are strictly followed. Once they are rigorously monitored and followed, not only will they provide protection, but they contrary

also

contribute to better methods for the government.

For example

, the installation of systems in public for observation is a way to make sure their measures have come after. In conclusion, restrictions are to assure citizens’ safety as well as if their management is being carried out. Government interference with the public's freedom is reasonable as it helps strengthen the security of society ,

consequently

Add a comma

,consequently

show examples

it is tolerable to deal with some difficulties in freedom restraining.